Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Converting to meters from yards

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Floyd (American football)/archive1, an interesting question came up: the reviewer noted, "at 5 feet 11 inches (180 cm) and weighed 190 pounds (86 kg).— Why have you converted to metric here and nowhere esle, not consistent?" At first take, I'm not sure whether or not we should be converting yards to meters, for instance in the article George Floyd (American football) converting "and averaged 15.2 yards per return as a punt returner and 30.2 yards per return as a kickoff returner" to meters. Thoughts? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Height and weight have multiple generally accepted units of measurements whereas an NFL field only really has 1 or 2 acceptable unit of measurement, yards and inches. A lot of the world measures height and weight differently than the US, so it's a useful conversion to include for a person's body. I'd argue there's no benefit to adding meters to measure distance on the field, there's no meter hashmarks, and it doesn't aid those who are unfamiliar with the sport in any way. If you said "he ran the ball about 3 of those big white lines" to someone unfamiliar with the game, in reference to the 30.2 yards per return as a kickoff returner average, it gives better context to the game than telling someone a returner averaged 27.6 meters since you can't tell how far that is on a field without measuring or knowing the yards to meter conversion already. "Peyton Manning threw for 65.78 kilometers in the regular season during his career" vs "Peyton Manning threw for 71,940 yards in the regular season during his career". Throwing for 65.78 kilometers is a lot, but what does that tell me in reference to the game of football? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree. For the casual reader from a metric country (almost all), yards and inches are pretty much meaningless. Giving the conversions, even if irrelevant to the game itself, is just being helpful to readers. There are several situations on Wikipedia where Imperial/Customary units are not allowed, such as space-related articles, and as an American, it's disconcerting not to have the conversions there. Of course I could do the conversions myself, or even use a conversion app or website. However, that takes away reading experience, and who wants to do Math while reading an encyclopedia article? I certainly don't, and I don't think we should make our readers do so in American football articles either. BilCat (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And I disagree back. Yards and inches may be "meaningless" to people who are mostly familiar with the metric system, but it makes no sense to convert yards to metres when dealing with measurements on a football field. When a player gains a yard, they're not necessarily actually gaining 0.914 metres, and any conversion implies a level of accuracy that is not merited. To all intents and purposes, a yard is approximately equal to a metre, and the understanding of an NFL article is not improved by the conversion. – PeeJay 18:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that the length of a yard doesn't really matter in the Imperial/metric context. No attempt to explain yards to NFL viewers in England, for instance. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable undrafted players

The lists of "notable" undrafted players on draft pages are getting to be pretty long. Are there any set guidelines for what makes an undrafted player notable? I see players with 1 or two starts over two seasons, with a handful catches/rushes and maybe around 100 snaps. QBs who only got to play in garbage time or had a single start as a reliever for an injured player. It just seems like this particular section has become so watered down that it's completely pointless. Are there guidelines for it already? If not, can we get some guidelines that are a bit more strict, or at least enforce them better? KristofferAG (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "notable" currently means undrafted players (with Wikipedia articles) who have played in the NFL. But I would agree that there should be guidelines for these sections. Natg 19 (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

These types of list arguably fall under WP:CSC: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You see such players where? I'm looking at, let's say, 2011 NFL Draft#Notable undrafted players, and the length and contents both seem reasonable on the face of it. Are there draft-by-year articles that have much longer, or less bluelinked lists? If the players are notable by wikipedia standards -- i.e. they should and do have properly sourced articles -- I'm not sure how one would further distinguish between the notable-but-not-hugely and the somewhat moreso. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about the lead of an article

If a player is currently on a roster but has not yet played, shouldn't the lead mention that he is on the team? Because Onel5969 keeps reverting my edits on Myles Adams, claiming "until he plays, he's not on the team". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For him to be considered to have played for a team, he must have actually played for a team. If a player is put on the roster, never plays, and then is dropped from the roster, he was never in the league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, he's on the practice squad, not on the roster of the team. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I didn't say he played for the team, I said he is currently on the team. If you look at most of the other practice squad players (still part of the team, for if you look at each NFL team roster navbox, it always includes the players on the practice squad) with a page, you will see it say in the lead "...for the _ of the National Football League (NFL)" even if they have not yet played. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He's not on the team. He's on the practice squad. There's a huge difference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: As said above, the practice squad is still a part of the team. And if you read the lead of nearly every PS player with an article, it will still say "...for the _ of the National Football League (NFL)". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing the active roster with one under contract by the team. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dissident93: My question is: if someone is on the practice squad, should the lead of the article say "...for the _ of the National Football League (NFL)"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes? Why do you think they shouldn't be? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I do think it should be mentioned, it was just that Onel5969 was saying that it should not be mentioned and was reverting my edits to Myles Adams, so I went to the WP:NFL talk page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: With all due respect, you're talking out of your backside. It's perfectly normal to refer to a practise squad player as being part of the team. I've honestly never heard of such a ridiculous thing to say. – PeeJay 10:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They are a part of the team. This is why we have a roster parameter in the infobox to indicate their status. You can have notable people on practice squads. Team roster pages include their practice squad, who wear team uniforms. They get paid by the team. So, in short, yes, I believe it's appropriate to say they are part of a team in the lead. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

From NBC -- "Practice squad players do not play in games or count towards the 53-man roster. They only practice with the team." (here's the link - it's the first bullet point). They only practice with the team, they are not part of the team. They are not eligible to play for the team until they are added to the 53 man roster. If you're not playing for the team, you're not on the team. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

They get paid by the team, and that team has special rights regarding the elevation of the player to the active roster. This is a ridiculous argument. – PeeJay 11:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Junior Galette

[Crossposted from BLPN] This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Oh, let me ping User:GPL93, who's been working on the article too. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 NFL season#Playoff clinching and elimination scenarios for week 15

This is a bit of a roiling mess. The whole thing has no reliable sources, and instead is based entirely a website called "nflplayoffscenarios". Is there a subject-specific decision to regard this as an adequate source? Furthermore, the page presents a "simplified" version of it (ignoring possible tied upcoming games and SOV tiebreakers) -- original research, essentially. Even assuming the website is on the money with its pathways, there's a clear potential undue weight issue here. However, some of this is verifiable -- for example, the scenarios for Dallas clinching their division is covered by USA Today Sports. OTOH, the couple of dozen scenarios for the Bears' (statistically certain when^H^H^H^Hif they lose one more game) elimination don't appear to be. It's also a stylistic nightmare, as clearly this gets bodged in every week, with some erratic combination of bold, italics, caps, linebreaking, etc, and by the time it's tidied up a little, the whole cycle starts all over again.

Should this be trimmed back to what's verifiable with suitable secondary sources? Or should we just take the stoic view that it'll all be moot in four weeks anyway? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed this entirely. Wikipedia is not a sports database or a news source. This will be all rendered moot in a few days. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, some editors disagreed with the removal, so there is a discussion ongoing here: Talk:2021 NFL season#Playoff Scenarios Section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep followups there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Article formats -> Create a format for coaches?

Something that has bugged me for a bit is the differences on some coach's pages, specifically in the info boxes. I'd like to discuss and come to a consensus regarding how to list a person's time with a team when they've changed positions on said team.

Steve Spagnuolo just had his article changed by a good faith edit, so I'm going to use him as an example.

Typical format I see listed (which the user edited Steve's page to);

• Philadelphia Eagles (1999–2000)
  Defensive assistant
• Philadelphia Eagles (2001–2003)
  Defensive backs coach
• Philadelphia Eagles (2004–2006)
  Linebackers coach
• New York Giants (2007–2008)
  Defensive coordinator
• St. Louis Rams (2009–2011)
  Head coach
• New Orleans Saints (2012)
  Defensive coordinator
• Baltimore Ravens (2013)
  Senior defensive assistant
• Baltimore Ravens (2014)
  Secondary coach
• New York Giants (2015–2017)
  Defensive coordinator
• New York Giants (2017)
  Interim head coach
• Kansas City Chiefs (2019–present)
  Defensive coordinator

Proposed, more compact format, which Steve had for a while and I personally find to be a much better format;

• Philadelphia Eagles (1999–2006)
  Defensive assistant (1999–2000)
  Defensive backs coach (2001–2003)
  Linebackers coach (2004–2006)
• New York Giants (2007–2008)
  Defensive coordinator
• St. Louis Rams (2009–2011)
  Head coach
• New Orleans Saints (2012)
  Defensive coordinator
• Baltimore Ravens (2013–2014)
  Senior defensive assistant (2013)
  Secondary coach (2014)
• New York Giants (2015–2017)
  Defensive coordinator (2015–2017)
  Interim head coach (2017)
• Kansas City Chiefs (2019–present)
  Defensive coordinator

Example	Type	Line count (posted)	Char count (editing)
Steve Spagnuolo	Current	22	663
Steve Spagnuolo	Proposed	18	599
Steve Spagnuolo	Difference	4	64

EXAMPLE 2 (added in on December 20th), Steve Belichick, matching 1st example;

• New England Patriots (2012–2015)
  Defensive assistant
• New England Patriots (2016–2018)
  Safeties coach
• New England Patriots (2019)
  Secondary/Safeties coach
• New England Patriots (2020–present)
  Outside linebackers coach

Proposed, more compact format;

• New England Patriots (2012–present)
  Defensive assistant (2012–2015)
  Safeties coach (2016–2018)
  Secondary/Safeties coach (2019)
  Outside linebackers coach (2020–present)

Example	Type	Line count (posted)	Char count (editing)
Steve Belichick	Current	8	305
Steve Belichick	Proposed	5	253
Steve Belichick	Difference	3	52

Personally I find the 2nd format to be much easier to read. It's also shorter, and arguably better reflects how a person may have moved up within the organization over time in a more digestible way.

In short, I'd like to propose that we change how coach's teams and their positions with those teams are listed. Ideally there'd be a full coach page layout, which would include a what to leave in and what to leave out section akin to the highlights section of the Player page format. This is my first wikiproject I'm contributing on so I don't know who has final say or would be in charge of doing it, but if need be, I'm happy to create a Coaches pages format page based off the Players' one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs)

Makes sense to me. (Though I'm not a regular at this Wikiproject, I just happened to stop by, so take that for what it's worth.) Nobody has "final say", that's the glory and the sheer hell of Wikipedia! Hopefully some sort of consensus will emerge in due course, though you may have to make do with working on the specifuc in the meantime, rather than going straight for a general solution. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This proposal has suggested on other occasions and it didn't make it each time. I don't think it has any advantages and the current way shows a coach's progress through an organization better. Any pages that have the proposed method your suggestion needs to fixed until if/when your proposal gets accepted, which I honestly don't expect it to.--Rockchalk717 06:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Several other articles were edited by that same editor doing the same thing. I reverted these edits.--Rockchalk717 06:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the second format better as well. It avoids unnecessary repetition and overlinking of team names, and just seems to be better organized overall. Also, even if this change has been suggested before but the consensus was against implementing it, consensus can change. I don't disagree with Rockchalk717's reverts pending the results of this discussion, but I think the discussion itself is definitely worth having. --Zander251 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd gently encourage both editors to WP:COOLTHEIRJETS a little -- which isn't actually a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but it works for me as a low-grade football team pun, at least. Let's neither do mass-changes nor mass-reverts if we can help it. Rockchalk717, did these previous discussions establish a clear consensus for the former style? Do you have a handy link about your person to such earlier suggestions? Could you expand how your preferred style "shows a coach's progress through an organization better"? The other seems to clearly do so: we have a "tree" where changes of team are much more apparent, and changes of role within that franchise "nest" inside that. Perhaps you could exemplify with a coach (actual or hypothetical) that you feel this format would work especially poorly on. Maybe it doesn't look so natural if an employee switches from team A to team B, then back to team A, say. Hey man im josh, would you feel motivated to work up your proposed Coaches Page Format -- or if you're feeling especially industrious, a couple or few different options, especially if there's notable existing variation and inconsistency and it's not 100% what the "standard" should be? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I've got some stuff planned for this weekend, so if nobody else feels like doing it before Monday then I'll start on a proposed Coaches Page Format. At the very least it will help establish and keep meaningful discussion on what aspects of a coach's profile should be included. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@109.255.211.6: I'm not sure what policy you were trying to link there but if you're insinuating that I'm getting heated, I'm not even remotely close to being that way. I'm not even annoyed or frustrated. I'm not about to dig through the archives to find the link, I just know it's been discussed in the past and the format every coach is on. Before anybody jumps to edits, we need other editors extremely involved in this project like I am to comment as well. And @Zander251: regardless of if you agreed with the reverts or not, it is policy not to make mass changes without a consensus so I was within policy to revert.--Rockchalk717 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd feel I was "insinuating" anything. I refer you to my comment that "which isn't actually a Wikipedia policy or guideline" in reference to what I was "trying" to link to, and the suggestion to both parties "Let's neither do mass-changes nor mass-reverts if we can help it." Does that require any particular further explication?

It's not straightforwardly "the format every coach is in" -- the change of Spags' article to that format was, as noted, very recent. Absent any concrete evidence of their being any clearly established consensus from any earlier discussion on this, much less an established formatting guideline -- which is after all precisely what Hey man im josh is suggesting is now developed, which seems to be to be an excellent idea, whichever one is actually adopted -- it seems quite the stretch to say that josh's edits violated any policy, or that policy gives you free rein to revert all such edits open-endedly. Hence my earlier suggestion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@109.255.211.6: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 17#Coaching history in infobox, it was a discussion involving myself @Eagles247, Dissident93, and Jweiss11:, four pretty active members of the project. Since I've pinged them, I hope the chime in here as well. So far I'm not see any really solid arguments to replace what was a long standing standard that became a consensus. It doesn't make it any more compact or clearer. In fact, more often than not, the article size is even fewer bytes with the current format.--Rockchalk717 03:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That previous discussion seems to object to the coaching stints not being listed in chronological order. That does not appear to be an issue with this current proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: While I respect your position, I don't agree with your statement that it doesn't make things more compact. When comparing the examples for Steve Spaguano, the 1st format has 22 lines (when posted) and 663 characters when editing vs the 2nd format, which has 18 lines when posted and 599 characters in editing. It would remove 1 line every time for consecutive entries for the same team, since the second consecutive line item with the team's name would be removed and placed under the first of the consecutive occurrences.
Another possible example of this would be Stephen Belichick. His info box, though not very large, would definitely be shortened and more readable if the positions were all under the same team instead of repeatedly listing the team. I added Stephen Belichick into the example, and provided a line count and character count summary. While you can argue the format may not be appealing, I don't think you can argue that the proposed format isn't a space saver. Things would stay the same in instances where a coach's position on a team never changed, but it would indisputably shorten up some info boxes by a few lines. I added some crude summary tables to highlight the difference between the examples.
As for readability, I often read the same team name over and over sometimes when going through an infobox seeing where a coach has been. It's easier to digest the information when I can read the team name once and see how they progressed, position wise, on that team and the years that it took to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

A status quo isn't necessarily either a standard, much less a consensus. Hence the value of more explicitly and transparently establishing one (ideally, one of each). I don't think that either number of bytes in the the source or number of lines are relevant criteria, unless we were hitting some extreme of technical limitations that doesn't apply here. Question really is, which is clearer, presentationally neater, and easier to follow? And I think pretty clearly the tree-structured one that doesn't cognitively-numbingly repeat duplicated information. The Spags article is a great example: the list is too long and too unstructured to read at all well, as any CV doctor would tell you. Rockchalk717, thanks for the link to the previous discussion: ideally Bigmike2346, who while not precisely "involved" in that discussion, was essentially the topic of it, would also be 'pinged' -- that editor seems to be both active and talkpage-responsive. (I'd leave them a message myself, but I don't want it to look like WP:CANVASSing if they're approached differently from the others.) Only one of the participants in that earlier discussion mentions "chronological order" -- but the particular edit they were discussing doesn't depart from the chronology. So it seems either there was some misunderstanding here, or the user had made other changes of a different sort. I would certainly agree that it should stay in timeline order, and not (say) "consolidate" multiple periods at one club. The reasoning of the other editors commenting there isn't especially evident, so hopefully they will indeed expand on that here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support the second, more compact format per josh and Zander251. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion How about not listing the specific positions in the infobox, and just noting non-head coach positions with (asst.) or similar on the same line. The details can be covered in prose (with citations). The infobox can get quite long for longtime coaches just listing each of their teams, let alone with another separate line for each respective positions. For reference, baseball bios don't enumerate the specific coaching roles in the infobox (e.g. Don Zimmer).—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I really like to see what a person's position was on a team. Depending on who you worked for the in the NFL it's very telling. Matt Patricia for example was with the Patriots from 2004 to 2017, and then again starting from 2021 onwards. In that time, his wiki shows 6 different positions of different responsibility.
* Offensive assistant (2004) - Mostly watching tape from what we hear
* Assistant Offensive Line Coach (2005) - First stint coaching in NE
* Linebackers coach (2006-2010) - Switched from offense to defense, coaching a unit himself now at this point for 5 seasons
* Safeties coach (2011) - Coaching a different unit on defense
* Defensive coordinator (2012-2017) - Control of all defensive units
* Senior football advisor (2021-pres) - We don't really know, just that he's with the org and not coaching
If it just listed the Patriots from 2004-2017 I think it wouldn't be as informative and useful as it is now. I don't follow baseball, but are positional changes as big of a deal as they are in the NFL? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It'd be a lot clearer and easier to follow in some cases, but it's a bit of a stretch to lump everything from "intern" to "D/O coordinator" as "(asst.)" or "coaching staff", or the like. Also runs into OR issues, as we'd be describing people by something other than either their official title or how they're described in reliable secondary sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also runs into OR issues, as we'd be describing people by something other than either their official title ...: Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the NFL nor its teams nor any "official titles". As for describing them as assistants, Bill Arnsparger held both position and coordinator roles and was called a "legendary NFL assistant"[1] Buddy Ryan was referred to as an assistant for his roles on various staffs.[2]—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting official names should be preferred in and of themselves, but if we're referring to them by neither their most commonly used titles as it appears in secondary sources -- which is the policy -- nor even official titles by way of fallback, as is often winked at, then we're very much ploughing our own furrow. OTOH if this is just clearly a shorthand that's glossed elsewhere ("various coaching roles", "coaching staff", as it were), it might work. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's shorthand for the infobox with details of specific roles (ideally) in the prose.—Bagumba (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support – infobox readability should matter more than chronological order, as the actual article should be written that way without issue. I'd also support Bagumba's alternative suggestion as the infobox is not supposed to be all–encompassing. Again, a good article would include all the exact details in prose, meaning no information is removed from the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Prose, or it might also be done in the form of a bulletpointed section if the text isn't going to discuss every single promotion and transfer individually. This is true, if the information is presented in more detail, and especially if it's linked directly from the infobox itself, there might be scope for some simplification. OTOH this would have to be done in some way that strikes a balance between being standardised on the one hand, and not over-trimming some of the shorter resumés for the sake of the longer ones on the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

... and especially if it's linked directly from the infobox itself ... We wouldn't link it from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think we might. Verifiability overrides style guidance, and this seems a fairly minor and contingent part of the style guide. (Perhaps a minor bush skirmish in the great over/under-linking wars?) You don't want an infobox that presents information in its own idiosyncratic manner and which makes the basis that presentation's been arrived at opaque. You'd want to at the very least join the dots with a clickable footnote, and I think a section link might be more helpful. But as long as it joins the dots back to the sources in a clear manner, one way or another. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability overrides style guidance Citations provide verifiability (WP:INFOBOXCITE), not links from the infobox to the body. Per MOS:LEADCITE, material in the lead is often OK uncited.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support alternative suggestion to not listing specific assistant positions in the infobox, per above. Alternatively support orginal proposal to not repeat the team when serving multiple positions with the same team in a contiguous span. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Punting yards leader

Is List of National Football League annual punting yards leaders notable? Punting average (for which no current list exists) seems to be the oft-mentioned annual stat. Is annual total yards leaders a thing aside from stats databases or bloggy posts?—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Historically, it was a statistic that was more significant. In the modern era, it has been appropriately supplanted by yards per punt as the more important stat for punters. Yards per punt is a much effective measure of a punter's efficacy, and the total punting yards stat tends to reward punters on teams with weak offenses who end up punting more often. Cbl62 (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Supplanted even before the analytics era. @Cbl62: You think an AfD is worthwhile?—Bagumba (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that it's probably valid as to earlier years when it was the measure used to evaluate punters. Bear in mind that, in olden days when scoring was not so prolific, the punt was a more important part of the game, which was played largely for field position. The Michigan team at one point in the 1930s described its strategy as "punt and prayer", as teams would punt before fourth down, and a fumbled punt by the opposition was considered a scoring strategy. Different times. In those days, "punting yards" was a much more significant measure. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

OK.—Bagumba (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To do: Create List of National Football League annual punting average leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you both that seems the more meaningful stat. It's if anything invidious to be "leading" the "total yards" stats, especially if it's down to being a bog-standard player in the Puntsalotsville Thirddownnonconverters. And the suggested alternative seems much more promising for being at least potentially sourceable: can't find anything at all in reliable sources for TY, AY are mentioned in some that might be usable. In fact I think the best fix is likely just to move the existing page to that new title, then to rewrite accordingly. If you were feeling mild-to-moderately bold you could do this without any explicit further process, but understandable you might want to cover yourself on that. If we can find a good source for it historically being a record, but more recently ignored, some sort of split might be indicated. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact I think the best fix is likely just to move the existing page to that new title, then to rewrite accordingly. Moves should only be to rename titles, not to drastically change the content, effectively deleting the old content but bypassing AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If I felt it was a "drastic" change, I wouldn't have described it as requiring at most moderately boldness. The existing page is problematic, the proposed one would address that by being more verifiable, but they're addressing fundamentally the same "leading punter" concept. Hence what's needed is a move (to preserve the page history for one thing), by whatever means. If you feel additional process is needed, then by all means list it at AfD (where I would and will argue for the same thing), or if you concur with the essence of my analysis, at WP:RM as a "potentially contentious" such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

List of NFL franchise post-season droughts

This entire article looks pretty ropy to me. It's very poorly sourced, distinctly OR-ish, and I suspect some parts of it fail WP:V and WP:UNDUE entirely, though undoubtedly other parts will be fine with a little effort to find suitable sources -- the sports pages are always yammering on about this sort of thing. But I very much doubt we'll find a reliable source that says that only Green Bay aren't currently experiencing a "playoff drought", and everyone else has one of at least a year (until in a week or so's time, they won't). Can anyone think of a suitable course of remedial action? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead of article (again)

Hello, to continue the discussion above, now Onel5969 is saying that the lead of a PS player must say "for the practice squad of the _ of the NFL" and that not including that in the lead is "misleading". I do not recall this ever being the accepted form of the lead of NFL articles. What do users at WP:NFL think? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind if this comment is moved so that it is part of that discussion? Otherwise we'll have two sections on the same topic, they'll get archived. Recognising the frustration of the above editor seeming a little like a bone with a bone on this topic, the current text ("on the practice squad") doesn't seem wildly unreasonable as such. As I understand it, there's an employment and contractual distinction between practice squad employees and other (the active roster, IR, etc), so this is of some distinction. If a player has been a long-term employee of the club and has been on and off their team roster, this might be undue weight, and potentially high-maintenance at that, if the page isn't being kept fully up to date. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It is very much undue weight to one aspect of the player's contract. To all intents and purposes, Badara Traore is a player for the Jacksonville Jaguars. That's the team that pays him. We don't need to get any more specific than that in the lead. – PeeJay 21:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, accuracy and specificity are not undue weight. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. For all intents and purposes the NFL is using the practice squad as the equivalent of MLB's minor leagues, holding players in case of a need for the major club. Do we say that Nick Dini is on the NY Mets? No, we say they are in the NY Mets organization. Why? Because there is an important difference between the two. Just as there is an important difference between the players that play on Sunday (or whatever day the game is on), and those that only suit up for the practice field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a totally spurious comparison. Please stop your disruptive edits or you will be reported at WP:ANI. – PeeJay 02:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how it is spurious? Are Minor league MLB players on the active roster of their organization? No. Are practice squad players on the active roster of their organization? No. Can minor leaguers be called up to the active roster. Yes. Can practice squad players be called up to the active roster? Yes. Do minor league players have contracts which have restrictions about who they can play for? Yes. Do practice squad players have similar contracts? Yes. And please feel free to report me at ANI. Then you will get to explain how accuracy and specificity is not important in an encyclopedia. Or you can try your bogus "undue weight" argument. Is it undue weight to say that Jaryd Jones-Smith is an "American football offensive tackle", instead of simply a "football player", or a "tackle", or an "offensive player"? Hardly. Why, because specificity is good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, good old reductio ad absurdum. You’ve been asked by multiple editors to stop trying to implement this change, and good reasons have been given. You may not agree with them, but that’s irrelevant and continuing to ignore an apparent consensus is pretty disruptive. You’ve clearly already broken 3RR on multiple articles. Drop the stick or you will absolutely get reported, and it won’t go well for you. – PeeJay 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not read this thread correctly, as there is no "consensus" here. Far from it. And I have as yet heard a "good reason". Obviously, since I just refuted your two truly spurious reasons. I questioned your two reasons, and gave rationalization and reasoning to question them, and you respond with a personal attack. Interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you're forgetting that this thread follows on from one above where your suggested changes were roundly dismissed. How bizarre that you would suggest that I committed a personal attack against you. How bizarre indeed. – PeeJay 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree that it'd be "undue weight". In the cases I've looked at, their roster status is explicit in every available source for their NFL -- it's pretty much the only reason these sources even exist. It's of pretty huge significance: we learn that Traore (for example) is a Jags OT. Is he the starter at that position, the reader may well wonder? The backup? The backup to the backup? No, he's in the spot on the depth chart as Debbie from accounts, or you or I -- not there at all. And that it's just "one aspect" of their contract: practice squad players are paid week-to-week (rostered players are typically under contract for a year or longer); they're hireable directly by other teams in more need of their services (to actually play); and of course, they can't actually dress for game day, much less actually play any downs. I think it'd be more accurate to say their contracts had "one aspect" in common with active players: that the franchise is paying their wages that week. Now personally I'm intensely relaxed as to how this is mentioned in the lead section, but it's pretty clear to me that decent summary style and indeed the principle of least astonishment requires that it's mentioned in some manner, rather than being relegated to "below the fold". As it stands we have an unnaturally short two-sentence lead section, which by no means should be any sort of preferred style -- much less one to be automatically reverted to -- and we have to scroll down to the current season, or to the bottom of a long infobox, to learn this. Classic case of burying the lede. Would people be happier with this as a separate sentence, standing alone from the unqualified fact of his association with the particular team? "As of [date], he is part of the practice squad," or something along those lines, say? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In the cases I've looked at, very few articles specify whether any player is the starter or a backup at their position, so I'm not sure why we would specify that a player is on the practice squad. A player's status can change on the whim of the head coach, and while I realise that a player being on the practice squad has specific contract ramifications, it doesn't really need to be mentioned in the first sentence or two of the article. – PeeJay 17:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As I say, I'm happy for it to be mentioned in, let's say, the third sentence. (Or indeed later still -- should any of these articles ever develop any more sentences than the present claimed "standard" of two.) And I'm a little skeptical about the claim that "very few" articles make the starter/backup distinction: the very first article I looked at, Aaron Rodgers, makes this explicit in the second paragraph of the lead section, immediately after discussing his period as a backup. Mitchell Trubisky specifies his backup status. (I've only looked at two teams, but that's half their active-roster QBs.) It's far from clear to me why other articles wouldn't, much less why they shouldn't: if an article's lead section is reduceable to a fixed two-sentence format -- Name (dob) gridiron [position] quarterback for [NFL concern]. [College], and [draft pick] -- that's not a sign of commendable stylistic consistency, but of poor summarisation (if not of an underdeveloped article generally with little to summarise!) But more importantly, it's not the same distinction: the depth chart really could change at any time, just as soon as the HC finds a printer or a sharpie, but the change from practice squad to active roster is a formal and contractual one, subject to very strict limits set by the league. It needs Debbie from accounts to exercise her skill position, and a certain timeframe. If Matt Rhule could have made a practice-squad player active on a whim immediately before the Bills game, or even by any other act of will on his part, he'd have been a much happier man in Week 15. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If a reader is super interested in a player's practice squad status, they need only look immediately to the right of the lead section to see whether the player is active, injured or a member of a practice squad. This discussion is only about whether it needs to be in the first sentence of the article (e.g. "Myles Dorn (born June 25, 1998) is an American football safety who plays on the practice squad for the Minnesota Vikings in the National Football League (NFL)"), which it doesn't. – PeeJay 21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Less than immediately, as -- as I said -- it's rather a long infobox, and it's at the bottom of it. And "we don't need to put it in the text of the article, it's in the infobox" is a strange line of argument at the best of times. "The lead section of an article is itself a summary of the article's content." Do these ledes do a good job of that? No, they do not. We should aim to do better, not use existing poor examples as precedent for not improving others. I strongly suggest not insisting that this discussion be only about the first sentence, as if it is there's a high likelihood we'll be back here shortly arguing about the second sentence, or the third one, etc. After all, you suggested the editor making these changes was "ignoring an apparent consensus" about a series of different changes they'd made earlier. (Ones that were indeed in my opinion ill-considered, for the record.) You can't have narrow discussions on the one hand, and appeals to a broadly construed consensus on the other. The more useful scope is, I think, "should roster status appear in the lead section?", and I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No strong view on this point but based on the edit history at Myles Adams, I would caution all to be wary of violating the edit warring restrictions. See WP:3RR. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Cbl62 - Point taken. My apologies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, let's not edit-war even within the formal restrictions on numbers of reverts! Clearly there's some "history" with these articles by now, but let's discuss this content change on its merits, without getting more heated or more personalised than it need do. To that end, let's not conflate them with other changes on the one hand, nor combine them with other contentious changes on the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning practice squad status in the lead of articles. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. It should be clearly stated in the article that a player is on the practice squad, with all the transactions and details in the body of the article. Thus the lead can summarize these details by saying they play for a specific team. Unlike the MLB comparison made above, practice squad players are part of the NFL team. The MLB comparison is ridiculous, as minor league teams are affiliated with major league teams, and are not necessarily owned or operated by the same ownership group (as an example, the Reno Aces are not owned by Ken Kendrick, even though they are part of the Diamondbacks farm system). Lastly, I would caution Onel5969 that the onus is on you to gain consensus for such a large-scale change. You made a bold change, you got reverted, now it is time to discuss. Note that WP:BRD recommends not "restor[ing] your changes or engage[ing] in back-and-forth reverting" while the discussion is ongoing. If you believe in this passionately enough, then I recommend you lay out your reasons in an WP:RFC and let the community come to a consensus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose mentioning practice squad status in the lead of articles. This argument, as with the original "Lead of article" section, is unnecessary. Practice squad players practice with the team, get paid by the team, etc. It is common for some practice squad players to be routinely called up/send down depending on roster availability. It is established consensus that practice squad players are part of the team, and therefore the lead should remain as established: "______ is an American football ______ for the ______ of the National Football League (NFL)." There are previously established methods for mentioning practice squad participation, such as the "Roster Status" line of the Career history section of the infobox. Porterland 15:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pete Vainowski

Pete Vainowski, who played nine seasons professionally, including one in the National Football League, was deleted in an AFD in which there were 8 keeps and 3 deletes, making this the only time ever, we have deleted an article on a topic meeting NGRIDIRON. What do users here think about this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: if you have concerns about an article being deleted or kept, you can always list at WP:DRV for a community review. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps that this illustrates that NGRIDIRON isn't a "notability floor". Nor is it necessarily a ceiling, as we perhaps see in the above "practice squad" discussion. Of course WP:GNG is "just a guideline" too, but it does link in rather intrinsically to verifiability, which is fundamental. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This could be worth a deletion review. Not much we can do here, that arena is your best choice. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably do one soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this absolutely deserves a deletion review, based on the fact alone that it was voted to keep 8-3 in the AFD discussion. That would suggest that whoever deleted it acted in direct defiance of the community consensus. Porterland 15:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, bad close. Definitely needs to go to deletion review. BeanieFan11, if you do go to DRV, please provide a link here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)